All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I imagine quite a lot of people around the mid-twenties may not have realised 'It' was a book. Why would they? It was good back in the 80s, but these days we need something better. He wouldn't write shit like that today.
I read the novel many years ago, but had little memory of it, as it just wasn't a favorite for me. I don't recall the 1990 mini series, but pretty much knew the story here.
Other than the excellent opening, I was not impressed at all, sorry to say. Just way too much material to over in a 2 hour and 20 minute film, and because of that, the structure didn't work for me at all.
I also agree that there were very few real scares and many missed opportunities, but considering how shockingly well this has done at the BO, I'm sure everyone involved is just laughing their asses off all the way to the bank and back home again.
I think the movie is well done and well acted, and also meant well to deliver a solid adaptation of the King novel, but for me, it was a misfire, and actually quite slow and dull. There was never any real concern for anyone, as "It" just didn't seem to be all that scary or even powerful (again, other than in the opening).
Highly doubtful I will be checking out the sequel at the theater.
Highly doubtful I will be checking out the sequel at the theater.
Would it be considered a sequel considering it is just the rest of the actual original story? They just split the child and adult timeline as opposed to how it is intertwined in the book.
Would it be considered a sequel considering it is just the rest of the actual original story? They just split the child and adult timeline as opposed to how it is intertwined in the book.
An interesting question is, will the sequel have kids in it, as main characters?
Considering they did so well with kids in the main roles, they might be scared to change the main characters to adults and lose a large chunk of the audience this movie brought in.
True, not an actual sequel, but the "2nd part" of the novel, where the kids are all adults, 27 years later.
On IMDB, there is alot of info about this, even who the kid actors would like to see playing their adult role. Jessica Chastain appears to be pegged for the adult girl role.
On IMDB, there is alot of info about this, even who the kid actors would like to see playing their adult role. Jessica Chastain appears to be pegged for the adult girl role.
The adult version should be Molly Ringwald. She's 9 years older than the character but come on; she's the obvious choice.
I read the novel many years ago, but had little memory of it, as it just wasn't a favorite for me. I don't recall the 1990 mini series, but pretty much knew the story here.
Other than the excellent opening, I was not impressed at all, sorry to say. Just way too much material to over in a 2 hour and 20 minute film, and because of that, the structure didn't work for me at all.
I also agree that there were very few real scares and many missed opportunities, but considering how shockingly well this has done at the BO, I'm sure everyone involved is just laughing their asses off all the way to the bank and back home again.
I think the movie is well done and well acted, and also meant well to deliver a solid adaptation of the King novel, but for me, it was a misfire, and actually quite slow and dull. There was never any real concern for anyone, as "It" just didn't seem to be all that scary or even powerful (again, other than in the opening).
Highly doubtful I will be checking out the sequel at the theater.
Grade - C-
Pretty much agree with this.
A problem for me was " I know all these kids are gonna live" so there is no threat. If they killed the black kid and the Jewish kid (why not -- hardly in the film anyway) that might have spruced things up a little.
I'm just not that bothered about clowns, they don't scare me, so when I see some CGI thing running at the screen, dancing or a bazillion jump scares that I know are gonna result in nothing consequential, it's all about seeing it through.
I thought the kids were good, for sure. Great acting, and I HATE kids in films. Especially horror movies -- you know they stuck some grot in there to try and grab your emotion. Hate kids in horror films, usually don't watch them because it is a deliberate ploy.
I sat through the whole thing with someone who had also seen the "original" IT ( I know it's a book, miniseries, and it's not a remake) and we thought -- it was alright. Weak.
Week later, I can't remeber a thing about it. Was the Leper scene really that great? I thought it looked terrible. The headless guy in the library? I must see that again cos I missed when it got scary. What else...
Pennywise! Yeah! That CGI thing that has people float... and when you pull them down and kiss them they just recover. Power of love and all that.
I preffered the miniseries not even showing the moment, really did not need to see a bunch of kids floating about. Just looked silly to me. We all float down here could just mean limbs in sewer water. disgusting things of that nature. No need to really show what IT is doing.
I also thought it was tonally off. but then I thought it was deliberate -- trying to do something new and different. I admire that, it did keep me interested until the break up and then it was a case of "ffs. here's the mid point break up scene" and yup, they all broke up only to rejoin again and defeat sometyhing that was pretty useless at killing people in the first place.